CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Hon. RICHARD M. NIXON, White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I want to take this opportunity to express my disappointment over the Administration's decision to withdraw its support for the establishment of a mid-decade census. As you undoubtedly are aware, over the past two and a half years the House Subcommittee on Census and Statistics of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee has heard witnesses from all levels of Federal, State and local government affirm their unqualified support for a special census in 1975. The figures now developed for the Census Bureau every 10 years are increasingly obsolete. Growing suburbs as well as central cities need updated information for planning and for Federal funds. Our Nation distributes over $10 billion in Federal funds using census data as a guide. In the long run, adherence to old data from the 1970 census later in the decade will cost our Government considerably more than the cost of a 1975 census. To insure the most equitable distribution of Federal funds, it is my sincere hope that you will seriously reconsider the establishment of a mid-decade census. Respectfully, EDWARD R. ROYBAL, Hon. CHARLES H. WILSON, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., August 13, 1971. U.S. House of Representatives, DEAR CHARLIE: I appreciate your letter of July 13 concerning the establishment of a mid-decade census. While this might be a very worthwhile idea, I would hope that any future census in a major urban area such as New York City would be conducted by a house-to-house canvass. The idea of mailing out census questionnaires to people in large areas of New York City was utterly ridiculous. The result was that very few questionnaires were returned-as was to be expected and an untold number of poor people were simply not counted. This was certainly the case in Manhattan where, as far as I can determine, the census figures being reported are largely fictitious. I would suggest that you look into this aspect of the problem in order to find a way of accurately counting people who live in our cities. With best regards. Sincerely, WILLIAM F. RYAN, Member of Congress. Hon. CHARLES H. WILSON, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHARLIE: I have your letter of July 13 and as you know, do favor a mid-decade census, but more of a head count than the decennial census. In the event the Subcommittee does favorably report a bill, my present intention would be to support it. With kind regards, Sincerely, WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Member of Congress. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., August 31, 1971. Hon. RICHARD M. NIXON, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: It has come to my attention that at hearings held in June of this year representations were made to the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service of the House of Representatives that the Administration does not recommend a mid-decade census. This position came as quite a surprise to several Members of Congress, including myself, because we had previously understood from top level experts in the field of statistical and census information that a mid-decade census was essential to the proper relationship between the needs of state, county and municipal governments in their relations with federally sponsored programs. Accordingly, Mr. President, may I respectfully request that strong reconsideration be given to this program in order that this vitally needed mid-decade census series begin in 1975. With best wishes. Hon. CHARLES H. WILSON, B. F. SISK, Member of Congress. U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Chairman, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN WILSON: Thank you for your letter of July 13 regarding the mid-decade census and the "N. Y. Times" article you attached. Actually I wrote to the President July 8 on behalf of a constituent of mine. I am expecting a substantive response within a week or ten days and will let you know as soon as I have heard what that response is. Meanwhile, I am enclosing a copy of the letter I wrote the President. Yours sincerely, FERNAND J. ST GERMAIN, Enclosure: U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: On behalf of a constituent of mine, Dr. Sidney Goldstein, a highly respected member of both the Brown University community and the sociology profession in America, I would like to request your reconsideration of your earlier decision not to endorse the taking of a mid-decade census. The continuity that such a census would provide, the depth it would add to interpreting the trends of present day society and the increased reliability it would add to those figures in our statistical bank would be immeasurable. Certainly, Mr. President, when the first census was authorized in 1790, a 10 year period was considered adequate. Today, however, America is a vastly changed country: our population has multiplied many times over, our needs have changed as has our concept of time. We can no longer afford to wait 10 years to discover how we as a people have changed in the past decade. Our ability to constructively act on the retrieved information will have eroded in the time it took to collect it. I would greatly appreciate your reconsideration of this decision, which could have a profound effect on our ability to accurately perceive the direction in which America is headed. Yours sincerely, FERNAND J. ST GERMAIN, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. RICHARD M. NIXON, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I am writing you with regard to the withdrawal of support by your Administration of a mid-decade census. In view of the fact that under present Federal programs billions of dollars are apportioned to various areas of the country based on population, the need for more exact counts on a more current basis is apparent. To this same end, it would seem to me that current information of this nature would certainly be needed in conjunction with any revenue sharing programs which the Congress might enact in the future. Sincerely, OLIN E. TEAGUE, Hon. CHARLES H. WILSON, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHARLIE: I am surprised that the Administration would oppose a middecade census. Enclosed is a copy of my letter to the President urging a change in his opposition. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. CHARLES E. WIGGINS, Hon. RICHARD M. NIXON, The President of the United States, DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: It is my understanding that Dr. George H. Brown, the Director of the Bureau of the Census, recently appeared representing the administration before the House Subcommittee on Census and Statistics and indicated your opposition to legislation proposing a mid-decade census. If this report is true. I strongly urge a review of the administration's policy in this regard. Accurate statistical data is absolutely essential for the proper day to day administration and future planning of both business and government. As you know, many government programs available to communities depend upon facts available primarily from census data. In a dynamic area like Southern California, 10-year-old data is utterly valueless. The cost of a mid-decade census is substantial but the benefits derived therefrom are worth that cost. Your reconsideration of the Administration's opposition to this concept is urgently requested. Sincerely yours, CHARLES E. WIGGINS, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Hon. RICHARD M. NIXON, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I am opposed to a mid-decade census unless such census would be only for the purpose of determining population. Further, I believe that all future population censuses should be done on the basis of door to door enumeration and not through the mail system used in the 1970 census. I am also unalterably opposed to any mid-decade census being used for reapportionment of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and in various State Legislatures. We already have enough confusion on redistricting and reapportionment without going through this every five years. Kindest regards. Sincerely, LAWRENCE G. WILLIAMS, B. Communications from State Governments and Regional Organizations Hon. CHARLES H. WILSON, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. STATE OF ALASKA, DEAR CONGRESSMAN WILSON: Thank you for your letter regarding the establishment of a mid-decade census. I have forwarded the letter to pertinent agencies of the State Cabinet with directions for the commissioners and directors to supply material for a possible letter to the President as you requested. Kind regards. Sincerely, WILLIAM A. EGAN, Governor. STATE OF ALASKA, OFFICE OF GOVERNOR, Juneau, Alaska, July 30, 1971. THE PRESIDENT, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: It was a distinct disappointment to me to learn that your Administration does not, at this time, support and recommend the accomplishment of a mid-decade census. The testimony of Dr. George H. Brown, Director of the Bureau of the Census, to this effect seems to negate previous statements by Secretary of Commerce Stans. It seems strangely ironic that the states with the smallest population are the ones most seriously affected by migration patterns towards, away from, and among urban centers and other communities. Alaska, with its small population base (15/100ths of 1 percent of the Nation's total) and its physical remoteness from the coterminous states, is faced with the particularly vexing problems of providing physical and social services to people spread out over more than a half million square miles. The Census Bureau has become the most reliable, trusted, and dependable source of statistical data. The decennial census of population, while for the principal purpose of fixing the representation of the states in the Congress, has also become the prime source of intra-state, urban, and small area statistical facts. While the "raw" population figures indicate that Alaska's population grew by almost 35 percent during the 1960's, the decennial census does not indicate the rather violent ups and downs that were components of that overall growth. The catastrophic Good Friday earthquake of 1964, the disastrous Fairbanks flood of 1967, and the discovery of gigantic oil reserves on the North Slope of the Brooks Range were factors in the population fluctuation, as were the several military cutbacks accomplished during the 1960's. Particularly critical to the equitable distribution of services and available resources is an accurate knowledge of the distribution of our population. In a dynamic state, such as Alaska, and in a Nation on the move literally as well as figratively, I do not believe that we can afford to wait ten years for substantive information on the number, location, and characteristics of our citizens. Population is a large factor in each of the revenue sharing proposals currently before the Congress. The Census Bureau's estimate of $150 million to accomplish a mid-decade census, while initially staggering, is not such a huge amount when |